Science as a path to God

By now you may have heard of the plan for a pro-creationism group to distribute copies of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in college campuses in November, timed to the 150^th anniversary of the book’s publication. The catch is that this edition will include a 50-page introduction that attempts to refute Darwin’s science by, among other things, claiming that Hitler liked it*.

Actor Kirk Cameron explains it all:

Sigh. There are many people a lot smarter than me (and far hotter than me) who can and have taken down the creationists’ anti-Darwinism. What frustrates me isn’t the ignorance or hostility to reason. It’s this notion creationists have that reason and faith are mutually exclusive. As a Christian who considers myself to be fairly intelligent, that offends the hell out of me. It’s also counter-productive; if you argue that the scientific method is incompatible with religious belief, people aren’t going to quit science. They’ll just quit God.

As luck would have it, a few days after first seeing the Cameron video, I got to the chapter in Brad Gooch’s biography of Flannery O’Connor where the devout Catholic writer discovers the work of French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard also studied paleontology and geology and was present for the discovery of the Peking Man. He wrote extensively about science as a legitimate path to God, exploring the idea that biological evolution will eventually develop a larger human consciousness. It’s an intriguing philosophy that I really want to read more about.

The Church did not allow Teilhard to publish those thoughts during his lifetime. But I like to think we’ve – ahem – evolved a little since the early 20^th Century in terms of our capability to reconcile belief and observation. That doesn’t mean that one believes one thing on Sunday mornings and another the rest of the week in the lab. I’m talking about true integration. How can you look at the cells under a microscope and not believe in a higher power?

Cameron and his group talk about college professors in the sciences as if they were the enemy. In my experience, nothing could be further from the truth. When I talk to the faculty at the college where I work, their prevailing attitude is a cross between wonder and humility.

Contrast that with the creationists who argue that Darwinian evolution can’t be accurate because otherwise bananas wouldn’t fit in human hands. It seems a little arrogant to me. Is that what the creationists’ hang-up is? If all life forms evolve to their most efficient form, then humans aren’t exceptional. And maybe they just can’t handle that idea. I really don’t understand that. If you believe that an all-powerful God created our world, why can’t you conceive that He also allowed life to adapt to the changing conditions of that world?

Creationists seem to have given up on science texts. Maybe they should read up on theologians like Teilhard instead.

By the way, Kirk, I pray in public every day, and I'm not in prison yet.

*Ok, first of all, natural selection was never intended to be a social theory, so shut up about frakking Hitler. Second, if we’re going to start rejecting philosophies just because Hitler was interested in them, keep in mind that he was a vegetarian who hated smoking and dug blondes. Just sayin’.